Laidlaw v. KRYSTAL COMPANY, 53 So. 3d 1128

Laidlaw, a patron, slipped on a wet floor at Krystal Company restaurant, bringing a negligence claim against Krystal.
Laidlaw alleged Krystal failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn of the danger.
Krystal sought summary judgment, relying on affidavits that rain caused water to be tracked in and that the floor had been recently mopped.
Affidavits claimed wet floor signs were placed before Laidlaw entered, but Laidlaw testified she did not see signs until after the fall.
Laidlaw’s deposition and interrogatories indicated the floor was slippery and there was no warning of a wet floor at the time of the fall.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Krystal, and Laidlaw appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on premises liability	Laidlaw supports negligence for failure to maintain and warn	Krystal shows signs were placed and floor was mopped; no breach shown	Summary judgment inappropriate; material facts disputed

Falco v. Copeland, 919 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (summary judgment requires absence of any genuine issue of material fact)
Jackson v. H.L. Bouton Co., 630 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (court should view evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
Cassoutt v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 660 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (summary judgment improper where factual disputes exist)
Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (premises maintenance duties and warning duties relevant to safety)
Aaron v. Palatka Mall, 908 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (dangerous condition warnings and premises maintenance analyzed)
St. Josephs Hosp. v. Cowart, 891 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (medical/hospital premises liability principles applied)
Mashni v. Lasalle Partners Mgmt., 842 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (negligence theory on maintenance/warning of premises)